Author Topic: Adobe Rejects (Read 15632 times)

f8 · « **on:** December 28, 2022, 19:26 »

What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

Hildegarde · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2022, 17:35 »

This issue often seems to be one reviewer (or if with AI, where AI uses sample) and it tends to rotate per agency. For seemingly forever, all images accepted then one batch gets unusual rejections. Images shot with tripod in same studio with same lighting, exposure, etc as others that have been accepted for years.

Unfortunately, this seems to happen on Adobe but it also happens at other agencies. The most annoying aspect is Adobe rejections just says "technical". I have to wonder if the reviewers there had to identify what technical issue there would be less of this random craziness. In any case, the vague reason does nothing to help contributors in future.

StudioLOWERLOOPs · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2022, 02:49 »

Resend again, if you think your photo good enough.

TonyD · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2022, 03:20 »

yes, I did find out that If your images are dark they often get rejected for quality issues so if I brighten it up and re-submit it then gets accepted. They even reject if they think the color balance is wrong but that is subjective at best.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2022, 11:04 »

Quote from: TonyD on December 30, 2022, 03:20

yes, I did find out that If your images are dark they often get rejected for quality issues so if I brighten it up and re-submit it then gets accepted. They even reject if they think the color balance is wrong but that is subjective at best.

Blown out highlights are another certain fail for "Quality Issues", that's one I admit I've been guilty of sometimes when I'm using the overhead lights and they are too harsh or reflecting on the surface of the subjects.

TonyD · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2023, 04:51 »

It always seems to be rejections for quality issues nowadays and I am having to guess which but can sometimes find problems but not always. I don't go on adobe forums anymore because they ALWAYS side with adobe. The revewers are wrong on there sometimes because I had more than one image re-instated after rejection and it sold soon afterward. Also someone on the forum calls himself a hardware/soft engineer but why would that make him an expert? hell, I'm a trained G designer from the analog era before digital but adobe with their software & apple ruined it all for me I'm afraid.

f8 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2023, 02:43 »

Quote from: MatHayward on December 29, 2022, 01:19

Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.

-Mat Hayward

Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours.

I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.

Lowls · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2023, 08:59 »

Quote from: f8 on January 02, 2023, 02:43

Quote from: MatHayward on December 29, 2022, 01:19
Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.

-Mat Hayward

Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours.

I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.

Did you tic the box stating submitted previously?

Lowls · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2023, 11:48 »

Urghhhh
Rejected by adobe for ... generic quality issues.

Boring 😴 😴

Translucent objects on textured paper with an L macro lens. Back-lit so they light up. Focus was brutally sharp. So sharp I had to search through the 40 I did because I didn't see the dog hair on most until zoomed in 150%.

Poor quality or poor lighting issues. Yeah that's how they were Back-lit. Poorly lit from the front.

Do adobe even want photos any more lol. Oh well accepted at SS blah blah.

Guess I'll try the resubmit runaround game. It's like the bad old days at SS.

fotoroad · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2023, 13:27 »

Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26

What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm

No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it

f8 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2023, 18:33 »

Quote from: fotoroad on January 16, 2023, 13:27

Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it

Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.

Why do something once when you can do it twice?

Lowls · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2023, 03:55 »

Quote from: f8 on January 16, 2023, 18:33

Quote from: fotoroad on January 16, 2023, 13:27
Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it

Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.

Why do something once when you can do it twice?

Going back a few years I remember Rinder stating how much he would get paid. Then it was i think 15 cents per review he said. I'm sure it's less now. But if they know its fine they knownutll come back through so Adobe in this case will pay twice for the review.

Of course although Matt says they don't, they do use A.I. and you know that because for years SS claimed they didn't then they admitted they did. Like the SS A.I. it rejects artistic lighting such as underexposed for texture or selective focus. Smooth surfaces and reflections and translucent objects get rejected for poor quality and poor focus because it can't handle it. I remember SS's "chromatic luminance" or something wierd everyone had to look up. It wasn't aberration or something normal. We had weeks of that then it shifted onto something else.

A.I. May be cheaper than humans but it is extremely stupid. And as a result you'll be getting homogenised output. Andntradirionally homogenised products do not sell.

They did interesting experiments with clothes. All the same colour T shirt stacked together meant people could zoom in on their favourite colours. Then go through them to find a design they liked. Then they may pick one. The problem was that they then bypassed all the other colours where they may have chosen design. But they couldn't be bothered to go through all the colours. Sales dropped.

If all the trees have a generic form and colour and artificial lighting level that looks like a still from a PS5 game you'll be losing customers. The same with any subject.

SS have learnt. Or their A.I. has been given glasses. Or their reviewers have better eyesight lol.

Lowls · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2023, 17:03 »

Another week. 9 submitted to various agencies. 9 rejected by Adobe, 8 accepted by other agencies lol. Its a shame because I like Adobe but ... whateva 🙄

Jaggy · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2023, 08:19 »

It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Lowls · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2023, 10:40 »

Quote from: Jaggy on January 31, 2023, 08:19

It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

wds · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2023, 14:52 »

Quote from: Lowls on January 31, 2023, 10:40

Quote from: Jaggy on January 31, 2023, 08:19
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.

Lowls · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2023, 15:51 »

Quote from: wds on January 31, 2023, 14:52

Quote from: Lowls on January 31, 2023, 10:40
Quote from: Jaggy on January 31, 2023, 08:19
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.

I'll just leave it. They don't take kindly to being pestered.

danielsbfoto · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2023, 05:57 »

Curiously this time the reason is new for me. This one:
"Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the image. Unfortunately, we've found our review to be similar to another image or images you've already uploaded during, so we can't accept it into our collection."

Two images. One of them are in my portfolio and the other one is the matter rejected. No other related with one drop against leaf concept. Attach images. No need 100%. Just to see differences horizontal, vertical, shape concept... Well I'm not original I know. Would have accepted similar against all stock images not between those two.

danielsbfoto · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2023, 05:58 »

http://

Lowls · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2023, 06:09 »

Yeah. I have a photo of a red leaf on the floor during autumn. I have some yellow leaves floating on water. 2 different images both accepted. Then I uploaded a photo of the red leaves on a tree against a bright blue sky. Nothing special so I wasn't bothered but it was rejected for similars lol. Oh noooo say it ain't so. A tree ... similar to ... a leaf on the floor. And you can find portfolios full of just water in a pool for pages and pages. It is mind numbing.

Lowls · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2023, 06:12 »

Pool water anyone. What magical properties allowed this port to slip through the net?
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204550982&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool&get_facets=0

danielsbfoto · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2023, 07:16 »

Lot hungry of feed for AI

Lowls · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2023, 08:21 »

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2023, 14:02 »

Quote from: Lowls on February 01, 2023, 08:21

There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Adobe Rejects (Read 15632 times)

f8

MatHayward

Hildegarde

StudioLOWERLOOPs

TonyD

Uncle Pete

TonyD

f8

Lowls

Lowls

fotoroad

f8

Lowls

Lowls

Jaggy

Lowls

wds

Lowls

danielsbfoto

danielsbfoto

Lowls

Lowls

danielsbfoto

Lowls

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors